Topic: MULTIWALLET/Trusted-Cryptos group/Multiple Coin Support/MultiShift/Fiat Trading - page 18. (Read 107581 times)

hi, of course development is going on :-)   we are going to share some updates tomorrow evening.

cheers

Hey MWC-Team !  Any development going on ? What about TOR and the new logo ? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true and most reputable exchanges do not Stake and Bitjohn and Mullick from Cryptsy have stated on multiple occasions that they do not Stake coins but the point is more about what can be done to make sure that there is no funny business (Mt. Gox, Cryptorush, Moolah etc.)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think fees going back into the blocks are better and higher fees are better because it encourages the need to build a more secure Staking platform, accessible anywhere and on any device. Also you can link to multiple wallet.dats so higher fees (that go into Staking as it does now) would benefit the major holders (the devs) and more so once the multiple exchange support gets under way.

Say for example the fees are raised to 0.02 coins (as I suggested), If Multiwalletcoin does well and is worth as much as Blackcoin you would see approximately 2-3k Transactions a day and with input combines you might see an average of 200-300 coins a day generated through fees along with Stake so assuming MDTspain and Sovie hold onto their coins and Stake, they would receive 5% a year, plus up to an additional 50k coins a year (assuming Stake participation is around 60% as in Peercoin and most POS coins).

If you hold on exchanges then you lose 5% a year, if you Stake sometimes you would gain 5-6% and if you Staked often you may gain 7-8%

On this moment I am not setting up any buy walls. With those 1 million MWC I could only set up a sell wall, as you can see in the orderbook that is not done either. Those coins are NOT on the Exchange any more.

My focus is now set on realizing the in wallet trading and after that the Multicoin Support.

any plans to set up another buy wall with that new found million?

Not to be outdone you can add my 2mil to the total for only 20mil in rotation, wallets and exchnages 
and mums the word on what the other members totals, so i venture to
guess that those that just gifted us these lovely gifts
will rue the day as our goals come ever closer to fullfillment.
 
 

And they are in my wallet... Just for everybody to know, I have now 5.2 mill coins. They won't go back to the exchange untill MWC is worth 1 USD.

This means that instead of 27 mill coins in roulation, there are only 22 mill in roulation.

Thanks,

Michael

WOW somebody just dumped 1M coins 

Hey Griffith,

Would it be feasable to do a dynamic coin supply?

One of the biggest problems with crypto is that nobody can see to find a good volumn for a coin. 100 billion coins = basically worthless coin people throw at each other. 100 coins and you get an expensive coin that nobody really wants to trade.

Would it be possible to create a system that would split and merge coins (like the stock exchange) based upon a voting system?

Example:

Say there's 1000 people who each have 1 coin worth $10. Over time the number of people grows to 2000 people. We now have a situation where everyone couldn't own a single coin. Thus the majority agree that the coin needs to be split, and for every wallet that has a balance, the number of coins is effectively doubled.

Now we have 2000 coins worth roughly $5 a piece.

I have no idea how feasible this is, but it seems like this would add a tremendous amount of value to the coin and allow us to tailor the volume of the coin to fit the coins situation.



Just a thought


-Pickle

this maximum stake weight wont cause a problem because exchanges dont stake coins. it is bad for them and the coin and business, so they dont do it out of common sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


this statement is just wrong. if you have double the coins and half the price. it market CAP is the same. but the value is half. cuz the price is halved. the price of something is how much it is worth. which is the value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there is an incentive for people to stake off of exchange. thats what PoS is. the incentive is free coins. as far is over 10% PoS rate. that is not rampid. My other coin ECC is 25% a year. the coin is doing just fine since i took over and its price is actually going up quite a lot. so MWC 5% PoS is fine for this coin.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fees paying back to the coin holders is not needed. this is the exact function PoS provides. there is no point in doing it twice. PoS pays the holders for holding and keeping there wallets open. this seems like a suggestion for a service that already exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

we are asking for input on the fees going back to the blocks as opposed to being destroyed. the only difference people would see is that the total coin supply raises slightly slower if fees are destroyed. we are not changing the fee amount any time soon as there is no need because this coin is not valued at 400$ a coin like BTC. BTC is the only coin with that issue.

The rise in supply isn't really an issue unless you are hitting more than 500 Billion, coins with higher supply tend to do better because people like to deal in full coins and will trade more often, plus it creates stronger walls. If the supply is going to be double what it is now in 10 years then what is really the difference? If you have twice the amount of coins and it is half the price, you have the same value.

There needs to be the incentive for people to Stake their coins off the exchange, it supports the network and creates better consensus, better security. You wouldn't want rampid inflation of 10% or more a year because it tends to really impact the price in the same way as miners selling.

Fees are a powerful tool, every transaction is charged a fee so that means if you are online and Staking, you are receiving the award proportional to your coins vs. all coins Staking on the network. Higher fees that pay to the holders are then better if you own the coin because you are unlikely to be spending all of your coins and long term holders would be more likely to invest more with their extra coins than POW miners because coins equal hashpower so you give up hashpower by sending coins.

All transactions also cost the network, whether it is ring signatures, fast block times, or combining large amounts of inputs. There is no difference in terms of size of one input whether it is 100 or 1,000,000 coins but sending 1,000 coins which need to combine 100 units contains more data than one input of 1,000,000.

Why are most coins deciding on an infinite maximum Stake weight? doesn't that pose an issue where exchanges can just let their coins Stake after having them offline and fork the network? Why not a maximum? Wouldn't that limit the amount of Stake weight if exchanges take their coins online and Stake?

Also, check this out by YACoin on split combine thresholds https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206577.1965;wap2

If we are going to talk fees and a change then I vote on the following

0.02 Coin fee which goes to into Staking
Split combine threshold set to 10,000 coins, at 0 days as default

The reason is that 0.02 coins would not be too restrictive and if at a value of $1 per coin it would represent 2 cents per transaction with a threshold that will better favor smaller holders better. Thresholds are only active within the wallet, not on the protocol level and reduces the amount of total inputs considerably.

@Cresitington - almost off the exchanges disable staking due to common sense that if they have a majority of the coins they could possibly fork the network.


on another note:
in the newer versions of the wallet i will be discussing with the rest of the team the idea of possibly doing what my other coins does (ECCoin) and that is fees are destroyed by the network rather than stored for later. as for now id like to ask for a general thought from the community on this matter. the fee rate would stay the same. you wouldnt see any difference when sending or receiving coins, it would just instead cause the total coin count to not raise as quickly so that we can see that there is a rise in demand to meet the rise in supply. let me know what you think.

If the fees are raised a bit, it also creates more income that can be used to pay developers to work full-time, maybe focus should be shifted to the structure of the payment system of the Blockchain. The way that most Cryptocurrencies are made is wrong because they will always be centralized in some way and does nothing to pay for development. This is my biggest gripe with Cryptocurrencies in general, the donation structure will never work to efficiently build the platform.

People only care about positive returns so why not charge higher fees (as well as higher threshold) and have a portion of Stake go into a group managed fund? Higher fees that go back into Stake means that all holders have the chance of hitting a Block of fees depending on their Stake weight and if a portion of Stake is retained for development then you are only paying if you are Staking.

My ideal currency would have

7-21 day max weight
5% inflation a year
high minimum fee or a percentage of the total input (whichever is higher)
percent of Stake going to development
all fees averaged over a large amount of blocks (1000+)

Just some ideas, obviously this doesn't fit exactly into the way the Blockchain is made currently but the purpose of having a higher minimum Stake age is really to help stop exchanges from potentially Staking.

As you all might know, me and Griffith are working on 2 coins , MWC and ECC . ( all other members are invited to work on both as well...hint, hint )

This is taking a lot of time and while Griffith and Kopach are working on the MultiPool and RaDus is working on the TOR implantation, we still have the feeling that we are not doing enough. The main reason for this is that developing coins happens in the spare time from the developers. This is the case with nearly all the Crypto coins.

Since a few weeks I have been looking for a full-time developer that could work for me, and I found one that has no background in the Crytpo-scene. This developer will work for me, like that there is no change in the structure of MWC.

As he will work full-time, I gave him the opertunity to continue the development of the trading-system, where we will replace Mintpal with Bter.com and make improvements on it.

My plan is that he will work on the whole RoadMap together with Griffith and Radus. Also futures that are not showing in the roadmap can be discussed.

Michael

My top choice would be BTC-e but I am more under the impression that they don't want to add new markets so that would be out so really the only other option would be BTER.

I think CCEDK is a good choice as well but would be better as a supplementary exchange.

Can we start trying to get listed on Poloniex? focused efforts yield faster results and everyone can agree on Poloniex

Quatloo trader isnt a bot, it doesnt trade for you, its just an api system that will make pre programmed trades when coniditions are met. and is a bit junky tbh. source is kinda messy. could be the way i got it to read out though. so not sure. but its not a bot.

mintpal is dead

Hi , any news today ?

IF we add a bot, we won't copy any one

Soooo, copy Quatloo trader?